Sure. No problem. Lets say since the 19th century many theologians and Bible scholars have used naturalism as a methodology. For example in respect with NT criticism. One of the most prominent Christian theologian/scholars like Gunkel who was like a father of the synoptic problem engaged in it. Today it is taught as a methodology.
Do you see how any position in philosophy, whether it is "used as a methodology" or not, must be defined?
You are talking about debates I think that's why I said communication. I am talking about academia. Not debates.
My debates with Plantinga were
about his academic writings.
I have give you the definition of naturalism in terms of philosophy. Not some cut and paste but a synopsis. But your argument went into leprechauns so I won't engage with that. Hope you understand.
I'm not sure whether or not you understand what
reductio ad absurdum is. The definition you attempted for naturalism was full of problems, and you refused to engage on the problems (just as you are now, just because of the presence of the word "leprechauns.")
Let me try to be clear about this, because I don't know what else to do. If I say something like, "but if we use that definition of 'natural,' then it would mean leprechauns would be natural," then this does not mean I am arguing that leprechauns exist, or that I'm actually arguing leprechauns are natural. I am showing that the definition has a problem in that it would allow for something to be called natural that we would probably not consider to be natural. It is a device to show that something is wrong with a definition. I do not know how to be more clear than this.
Did that hopefully clear a little bit up about that?
You provided some definitions and just copied and pasted the same definitions, ignoring the problems being pointed out with them. Do you see how that is not discussing in good faith?
Let me say this: definitional discussions should be
very simple and
very quick. This one has turned into 9 pages because of refusal to just define terms in some intelligible way, and address problems with any proposed definitions. If you were to ask me to define "materialism" or to define what I mean by "material," it would take me one post to do so, and to do so succintly, maybe one follow-up post to address any follow-up questions about what I might mean by something within that definition.
But this discussion has taken nine pages of people
begging you to just define your terms.
I have tried pointing out that in philosophy we are careful about our terms, we have definitions for them. But when I point this out, you say strange things like "we're not saying this term to communicate, we're saying it as a method." This does not excuse words from needing a clear definition in order to mean anything.
But you are going into dictionary definitions of words and root words to define philosophy. Thats regression. Thats not how it works. For example, they dont come up with a word like naturalism and then go defining it which is the approach you are taking. They have an understanding of so many things I have already said so far, then someone has come up with the term naturalism to define it with one word for ease of protocol. It was initially used by a writer called Emill Zola. It was his concept or methodology that he put into one word. So the philosophy is not defined by the word, the word is defined by the philosophy.
For the third time: I brought up a dictionary definition for the
explicit purpose of pointing out we cannot rely on the dictionary for this discussion. I have not brought it up since, except for every time that you bring it up, to affirm that we're
not using dictionary definitions as they are insufficient. Can we agree to stop? Can we agree we can leave the dictionary alone and just sensibly define some terms using philosophical concepts that are exhaustive and cognitive?
As for "the philosophy is not defined by the word, the word is defined by the philosophy." This does not excuse a word from
meaning something when used. The same can be said about ontological materialism for instance: that word was created because there was a philosophy that somebody needed to use a term for. Just as you say. But we can still define what we mean when we say "materialism" and "material." It would be meaningless unless we could define it! A definition would be a quick overview of the philosophy, for instance. Enough to impart an idea in someone's mind.
If someone asked me, "Hey Erin, what is ontological materialism?" I could say "well, materialism is the position that only material things exist." The follow up question is obvious: they will ask, "okay, so what do you mean by material?" Then I would say, "to be material is to have spatiotemporal extension and mass-energy." I have now fulfilled my duty, the term is defined, simple as that, in
one sentence, not nine pages.
A person might say, "Erin, I think there's a problem with the way you defined that." Then I would say "okay, where do you see the problem?" and we would hash it out. They would perhaps show me where my definition leads to an absurdity. (This is what I was attempting to do with you when I was saying the stuff about leprechauns). That would be a valid approach for them to take. Then I would respond with either why their objection doesn't work, or I would need to amend my definition so that it takes their objection into account.
